Katy Perry Dark Horse video 'portrays blasphemy'

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yes, big deal here and now. What about in 350 years or 500 years? I mean - the use of the term in regards of slavery is out side and way beyond living recall, it's a cultural relic lost of its moorings, used by left right and centre for a shuttle cock. I don't play tennis. The cock drops.

Come back in 500 years and tell us about it. In the meantime, please be aware that using such phrases today is offensive to many people and could land the site in legal trouble.

[cronus]

It is a word in the dictionary, used in the context of the vid meant to convey the power dynamic depicted where the female 'star' is able to turn folks of color to sand. I found that aspect of the vid offensive, merely used the term to convey the social hypocrisy of the day that'll be readily apparent in a few years when the ME stops supplying the US with oil. There was no intent to use the term offensively, aimed at a specific individual or group. It was a metaphor for a lot worse, in being turned to sand...is a lot worse than the usage of the word.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It is a word in the dictionary, used in the context of the vid meant to convey the power dynamic depicted where the female 'star' is able to turn folks of color to sand. I found that aspect of the vid offensive, merely used the term to convey the social hypocrisy of the day that'll be readily apparent in a few years when the ME stops supplying the US with oil. There was no intent to use the term offensively, aimed at a specific individual or group. It was a metaphor for a lot worse, in being turned to sand...is a lot worse than the usage of the word.

OK. Let me put this plainly. Use of racist slurs could be considered "provoking racial hatred" and could potentially get this site into legal difficulties.

I am not saying that any word is banned provided it is used contextually and with no obvious race-hate connotations but I am saying that the gratuitous use of such words to describe a group of people (such as in your post) is a legal grey area that we do not wish to tread.

So, post anything like that again and it will be deleted without further discussion and you may find your account suspended.

Capisce?

[Hermit]

Is that the consensus of the forum's overlords, or are you acting on your own?

While I am clearly pissed off with Scump's gratuitous use of "sand-nigger", the context he was using it in makes it a pejorative at worst. It is miles away from "provoking racial hatred".

[charlou]

Agree with Hermit .. To think it 'provokes racial hatred', is to assume that we are so easily 'provoked'. And if anyone was inclined to racial hatred, they were already there.

Much prefer open criticism, as Sælir has done, and even the attempt to explain and rationalise that has come of it from scumple. Provokes important challenge of thinking.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This is an open forum. The site is hosted in the UK and there are specific laws against religious and racial "hate speech". The staff consensus is that we do not wish to become a test-case on this matter.

[FBM]

I think we need to know the specifics of the applicable law(s) that define hate speech over there where we're hosted.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think we need to know the specifics of the applicable law(s) that define hate speech over there where we're hosted.

Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:

• deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
• distributing racist material to the public
• making inflammatory public speeches
• creating racist websites on the Internet
• inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

Holocaust denial is not covered under this legislation, but laws against incitement to hatred against religions were later established under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. However this legislation is not present in Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement ... ed_Kingdom

[cronus]

[cronus]

My criteria is simple. Humans are all one species. They all die of the same disease. Lawyers fail to do anything except line their own pockets playing race hate laws and race based legalise. I will avoid use of race based language on site for the sake of peaceful life not because I see the mainstream social hypocrisy has useful, careful what you say but deny employment and imprison and beat up ethnics. Whenever I do use 'race based lingo' in every day life then it reaches under the skin of others but means nothing to me. I don't care you are all the same.

[cronus]

Where did the 'group of people' come from anyway since the fictional character in the video and my commentary where both singular.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Where did the 'group of people' come from anyway since the fictional character in the video and my commentary where both singular.

Oh no! You got me! The fatal flaw in my argument is revealed! It must be OK to use racist epithets in a gratuitous manner. How could I have been so blind?!?

Oh, and

[Hermit]

Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:

• deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
• distributing racist material to the public
• making inflammatory public speeches
• creating racist websites on the Internet
• inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

Not one of those points in your list applies to Scumple's post.

The site is hosted in the UK and there are specific laws against religious and racial "hate speech". The staff consensus is that we do not wish to become a test-case on this matter.

So, has Scumple's post been discussed among the moderators? The above does not exactly mean that it has. Reeks too much like lawyer-speak. Your blue ink looks like you are just being a bit hotheaded. I find that extremely odd in view of what Tyrannical has gotten away with over many posts and several years without incurring a similar warning. If you are worried about a test case, why have you not deleted half of his posts, especially the ones in which he openly admits that he is a racist and proceeds to explain how his stance is the correct one?

[cronus]

Set them up with my 'scumple' moniker, removing the 'r' and waited to see how long before it'd take. Figured the mods and moral guardians would need a lightning rod. The site would have fallen apart before now with in fighting without one. My wife is ginger and part Neanderthal so I'm not racialist. Cost a few bob to bring her into this era from way back when though.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:

• deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
• distributing racist material to the public
• making inflammatory public speeches
• creating racist websites on the Internet
• inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

Not one of those points in your list applies to Scumple's post.

The site is hosted in the UK and there are specific laws against religious and racial "hate speech". The staff consensus is that we do not wish to become a test-case on this matter.

So, has Scumple's post been discussed among the moderators? The above does not exactly mean that it has. Reeks too much like lawyer-speak. Your blue ink looks like you are just being a bit hotheaded. I find that extremely odd in view of what Tyrannical has gotten away with over many posts and several years without incurring a similar warning. If you are worried about a test case, why have you not deleted half of his posts, especially the ones in which he openly admits that he is a racist and proceeds to explain how his stance is the correct one?

Tyrannical has received warnings for similar posts in the past and had some of them removed - if you wish to report any of his that you think we missed, feel free. That was after lengthy staff discussion about whether it could be seen as "hate speech" and what to do about it.